Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first full poll after Swinson’s Brexit gamble sees the LDs

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first full poll after Swinson’s Brexit gamble sees the LDs up 4 ahead of LAB into second place

There is a new YouGov poll in the Times this morning which is the first one to have taken place since the Lib Dems at their conference voted to stop Brexit even without a referendum.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.
  • The rest of the early shift is busy reading 700 pages of David Cameron's breathless prose. The man's on telly tonight as well
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sir John Major will compare Boris Johnson to a dishonest estate agent today, saying that he had “ulterior motives” when he prorogued parliament.

    The former Tory prime minister, whose lawyers will intervene at the Supreme Court, has said in written submissions that Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful”.

    He argued that Mr Johnson’s justification for prorogation to bring forward a new legislative programme “makes no sense and cannot be the true explanation”. In a clear suggestion that Mr Johnson should not be believed, Sir John wrote that it would be “artificially naive” for the court to accept the prime minister’s stated reasons for the prorogation.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-battle-johnson-acted-like-a-dishonest-estate-agent-major-to-tell-court-7p7z7263r
  • This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.

    Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...
  • An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591

    This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.

    Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

    I agree. But on what moral basis can you ban them?

    They are private institutions which in their own right do no harm personally.

    The harm comes from their relative performance compared to the state sector
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,235
    The better Joanne Swinson does in taking votes from Labour, the greater the chance the Tories have of an overall majority which will be all the better to destroy a few Liberal shibboleths. Every cloud, etc
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    edited September 2019
    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    They don't know it won't happen. They might get a majority, and revoking really would have massively beneficial effects on the public finances. They probably won't, but it's not unthinkable in this weird climate, and it's reasonable for them to make a manifesto based on the idea that they have the votes to do what's in the manifesto, since that's the whole premise of a manifesto.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    It sounds as though you and old_labour would prefer they simply didn’t run at all, or did so but without a manifesto.

    Silly.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    21% is a 20 point drop from GE2017.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    Trump nominates torture advocate to lead US human rights policy...
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/17/trump-billingslea-torture-human-rights-228112
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Justin Trudeau.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    tlg86 said:

    Justin Trudeau.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Not because blackface is just hilarious, I hope ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    Why would Corbyn want to look again at Clause 4 ahead of what might be an imminent election ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/19/labour-to-review-language-of-tony-blairs-clause-iv-reform
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,402

    This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.

    Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

    People have the moral right to seek the best for the children - many current and former Labour MPs went private and sent their children to private schools. Diane Abbott springs to mind immediately.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618
    tlg86 said:

    Justin Trudeau.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    A proper apology for a change:

    "Speaking to reporters Wednesday night, following TIME’s publication of the photo, Trudeau apologized: “I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better and I didn’t. I’m really sorry.” When asked if he thought the photograph was racist, he said, “Yes it was. I didn’t consider it racist at the time, but now we know better.”
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    It sounds as though you and old_labour would prefer they simply didn’t run at all, or did so but without a manifesto.

    Silly.
    Nonsense, happy for them to run, would prefer for them to set out which parties they are prepared to work with, which policies they would prioritise if/when they need to work with other parties. I speak as a burned 2010 Lib Dems voter.

    As I said on a previous thread, Swinson seems to be saying she would VoNC Corbyn as PM. If that's the case, I know several family members who won't vote LD, because for them it's all about beating the Tories.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620

    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    They don't know it won't happen. They might get a majority, and revoking really would have massively beneficial effects on the public finances. They probably won't, but it's not unthinkable in this weird climate, and it's reasonable for them to make a manifesto based on the idea that they have the votes to do what's in the manifesto, since that's the whole premise of a manifesto.
    Fair point, they don't know, it's possible. I just think they've learnt the wrong lesson from coalition. The problem is not that there was a coalition, it's that their voters felt misled.
    They thought they'd voted for PR, against trident, against tuition fees. Actually they'd voted for a softer Tory govt. I'm probably just being irritable though it's true.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618
    rkrkrk said:

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    It sounds as though you and old_labour would prefer they simply didn’t run at all, or did so but without a manifesto.

    Silly.
    Nonsense, happy for them to run, would prefer for them to set out which parties they are prepared to work with, which policies they would prioritise if/when they need to work with other parties. I speak as a burned 2010 Lib Dems voter.

    As I said on a previous thread, Swinson seems to be saying she would VoNC Corbyn as PM. If that's the case, I know several family members who won't vote LD, because for them it's all about beating the Tories.
    Well, that should become clear as the election approaches. We need to know if Labour will prop up a Swinson government B)

    We cannot know what coalitions are possible until we see how the seats wind up.
  • It’s almost certainly a temporary conference boost. But the underlying position will be very satisfactory for the Lib Dems anyway.
  • Off topic, I had one of my best meals of the year last night, in a small restaurant in Szeged called Tiszavirag. Should any reader find themselves in the area, I strongly recommend it.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    They don't know it won't happen. They might get a majority, and revoking really would have massively beneficial effects on the public finances. They probably won't, but it's not unthinkable in this weird climate, and it's reasonable for them to make a manifesto based on the idea that they have the votes to do what's in the manifesto, since that's the whole premise of a manifesto.
    Fair point, they don't know, it's possible. I just think they've learnt the wrong lesson from coalition. The problem is not that there was a coalition, it's that their voters felt misled.
    They thought they'd voted for PR, against trident, against tuition fees. Actually they'd voted for a softer Tory govt. I'm probably just being irritable though it's true.
    I wonder if this is where the left in Labour got their boost, plenty of people drifted away from Labour over Iraq, much more so from the left of the party and the Lib Dems with their anti war position were a natural way to go. I voted Lib Dem in 2005. With the Lib-Tory coalition some of these people were disappointed and headed back to Labour.
  • rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    They don't know it won't happen. They might get a majority, and revoking really would have massively beneficial effects on the public finances. They probably won't, but it's not unthinkable in this weird climate, and it's reasonable for them to make a manifesto based on the idea that they have the votes to do what's in the manifesto, since that's the whole premise of a manifesto.
    Fair point, they don't know, it's possible. I just think they've learnt the wrong lesson from coalition. The problem is not that there was a coalition, it's that their voters felt misled.
    They thought they'd voted for PR, against trident, against tuition fees. Actually they'd voted for a softer Tory govt. I'm probably just being irritable though it's true.
    Labour's spin team will be scrambling to find a video of Nick Clegg saying it does not matter what is in the LibDem manifesto because policy will be thrashed out in coalition negotiations.
  • I'm fairly certain this is just a standard conference bounce which will evapourate when Labour gets its turn next week. Though the fact they got a standard conference bounce when the single message was the controversial Revoke policy will be reassuring.

    But more importantly the clear message of conference is Jo Swinson is good enough. I wasn't sure she was but she clearly is. She's had a strong start.
  • O/T - long read (non paywall) of the NYT magazine article on the Boeing 737Max - blaming the pilots arguing “poor airmanship”

    http://archive.is/vYmHZ
  • Working Families Party Endorses Elizabeth Warren. Here’s Why It Matters. https://nyti.ms/34PNvhe
  • I'm fairly certain this is just a standard conference bounce which will evapourate when Labour gets its turn next week. Though the fact they got a standard conference bounce when the single message was the controversial Revoke policy will be reassuring.

    But more importantly the clear message of conference is Jo Swinson is good enough. I wasn't sure she was but she clearly is. She's had a strong start.

    Swinson has got the party back into the papers and onto the telly, a task which, fairly or unfairly, eluded Vince Cable and the other one.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,487
    A bit of current anecdotal information. In our area, we are seeing a lot of previously committed Tory members leaving and joining the Liberal Democrats, but their vote is down maybe only a quarter on 2017. With Labour, no active members have defected locally, but their vote has collapsed, and each time it is Corbyn given as the reason. The SNP are slightly down overall, and support for independence is down quite a bit. Implication is Labour hurt more than Tories and unless Kier Starmer replaces Corbyn very soon, the will take a whipping. The Tory vote is fragile, but still just about holding on
  • @Cicero where's your area?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    edited September 2019
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Justin Trudeau.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    A proper apology for a change:

    "Speaking to reporters Wednesday night, following TIME’s publication of the photo, Trudeau apologized: “I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better and I didn’t. I’m really sorry.” When asked if he thought the photograph was racist, he said, “Yes it was. I didn’t consider it racist at the time, but now we know better.”
    Risky and probably a silly thing to do, but doesn't it remind us that prior to moving to Europe Home sapiens normal skin colour was almost certainly brown? 'White' is very probably to ensure that the maximum amount of Vitamin D in the body, in areas where there is both reduced sunlight and a shortage of oily fish in the diet.
  • Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    rkrkrk said:


    Fair point, they don't know, it's possible. I just think they've learnt the wrong lesson from coalition. The problem is not that there was a coalition, it's that their voters felt misled.
    They thought they'd voted for PR, against trident, against tuition fees. Actually they'd voted for a softer Tory govt. I'm probably just being irritable though it's true.

    Tuition fees hurt the LDs so much because it was a major manifesto point. Then in the coalition agreement, they just ripped it up and accepted the Conservative's 9000 Pounds per year, the complete opposite.

    A softer tory government was certainly better then a full tory government. Unfortunately the LDs in government started to actively support Conservative policies in the name of "collective agreement".


  • This is quite a Brexity story in terms of the parent company citing it as a factor and the demographic of the customer base/iconography of empty shops. I'm sure the Brexit dividend for the marginalised and ignored will be along shortly.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/18/theyve-run-off-with-our-goods-anger-at-albemarle-bond-hq
  • I'm fairly certain this is just a standard conference bounce which will evapourate when Labour gets its turn next week. Though the fact they got a standard conference bounce when the single message was the controversial Revoke policy will be reassuring.

    But more importantly the clear message of conference is Jo Swinson is good enough. I wasn't sure she was but she clearly is. She's had a strong start.

    The LDs have not had a conference bounce for years and this week have had a hell of a lot of competition for coverage, so this is hugely encouraging for them. Overall, though, the main anti-No Deal/No Deal blocs remain pretty much as they were. For me, this makes the next election very hard to predict, despite the big Tory lead. The conundrum is this: the LD vote is very focused on preventing Brexit, so in places where the LDs can’t win, why vote LD when you can vote Labour and help prevent a No Deal Tory from winning?

  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Justin Trudeau.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    A proper apology for a change:

    "Speaking to reporters Wednesday night, following TIME’s publication of the photo, Trudeau apologized: “I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better and I didn’t. I’m really sorry.” When asked if he thought the photograph was racist, he said, “Yes it was. I didn’t consider it racist at the time, but now we know better.”
    I don’t consider it racist, and nor do I think politicians should be forced to apologise for something they did almost 20 years ago when they were still a private person.

    But, in an election campaign where he’s the front runner, it’s simply far too tempting a target for his political opponents to let pass.
  • I'm fairly certain this is just a standard conference bounce which will evapourate when Labour gets its turn next week. Though the fact they got a standard conference bounce when the single message was the controversial Revoke policy will be reassuring.

    But more importantly the clear message of conference is Jo Swinson is good enough. I wasn't sure she was but she clearly is. She's had a strong start.

    It’d be hard to be worse than Vince Countdown and Cocoa Cable.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618

    I'm fairly certain this is just a standard conference bounce which will evapourate when Labour gets its turn next week. Though the fact they got a standard conference bounce when the single message was the controversial Revoke policy will be reassuring.

    But more importantly the clear message of conference is Jo Swinson is good enough. I wasn't sure she was but she clearly is. She's had a strong start.

    The LDs have not had a conference bounce for years and this week have had a hell of a lot of competition for coverage, so this is hugely encouraging for them. Overall, though, the main anti-No Deal/No Deal blocs remain pretty much as they were. For me, this makes the next election very hard to predict, despite the big Tory lead. The conundrum is this: the LD vote is very focused on preventing Brexit, so in places where the LDs can’t win, why vote LD when you can vote Labour and help prevent a No Deal Tory from winning?

    Yes, we desperately need some constituency level polling.

    If only Jack's ARSE could produce...
  • YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    You are not suggesting a BIG RED BUS with BIG BOLD ££££ Signs on the side are you?

  • Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

    1) To the extent that education isn't zero-sum, people are diverting money from consumption into education, which both increases total education spend (which is good for the whole of society) and increasing the amount the state has per pupil (since they don't have to pay to educate the kids who don't attend their schools)

    2) Basic freedom to educate your kids how you like, as long as you're not training them up to do something very socially harmful, like joining the Taliban or becoming PM and wrecking the country with a stupid referendum

    3) Some private schools are good schools, and the replacements may be bad, and it doesn't sound ethical to break good schools
    4) They lead innovations in education teaching methods and new courses that can then permeate into the state sector, that might otherwise not occur.

    5) By offering higher salaries and better conditions they create choice for teachers and education workers, and more education jobs.

    6) The sum total of having very good private schools to society is a net benefit as the vast majority will enter the UK workforce; a good number will become industry and sector leaders and earn the Exchequer lots of money in taxes.

    7) They are good for brand UK plc (several are world renowned) with overseas students and their families contributing to our economy as opposed to someone else’s.
  • On topic, conference boost but amusing nonetheless.
  • Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    The charge of hypocrisy might strengthen Major's criticism of Boris, for on dodgy prorogations, he knoweth of what he speak. Major might claim in mitigation that his prorogation was followed by a general election.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    The more I see of Camerons book the more I think hed have been better shutting up. This isnt doing him any favours.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    The charge of hypocrisy might strengthen Major's criticism of Boris, for on dodgy prorogations, he knoweth of what he speak. Major might claim in mitigation that his prorogation was followed by a general election.
    Not sure that helps given Boris has twice had his party vote for an election.
  • O/T - long read (non paywall) of the NYT magazine article on the Boeing 737Max - blaming the pilots arguing “poor airmanship”

    http://archive.is/vYmHZ

    And an alternative view - that Boeing cost cutting led to an inevitable “blame the pilots”:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-investigation-indonesia-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-managerial-revolution
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    There will be huge relief amongst the Lib Dems after the YouGov poll.

    However the revoke policy hasn’t come under sustained attack which you might see in a general election .

    I think the messaging around Revoke will be important , it’s the only way to end the chaos etc.

    The Lib Dems need to order the bus , start printing the t shirts aswell !

    I think Vote To Revoke is a simple message and could catch on.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    That's a very astute post. The public want closure and they want those we employ to do these things to get on with it. I would be surprised if 1% understand what the Irish backstop is. Or care if they do. They've chosen

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    You are PB's champion of the ad hominems.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    The Swinson approach also opens up the possibility of leaving the EU for good at any future point. You just need to get enough MPs, not a majority of the voters. No need for messy second referendums.

    And last night's poll would give the Tories an adequate majority to do just that. The EU can now see that trying to keep us in long term is a forlorn hope. The rules of the game have changed. They might as well let us go now, rather than have 3, 5, 10 years waiting for it to happen.

    That is what Jo Swinson has done. Thank you, Jo.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    Tony Blair . 'The successful politicians are the ones with simple messages but they should be able to explain and justify them in a long interview...." Talking to the soon to be ex John Humphrys.

    I wish we had someone with half his articulacy today.
  • Roger said:

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    That's a very astute post. The public want closure and they want those we employ to do these things to get on with it. I would be surprised if 1% understand what the Irish backstop is. Or care if they do. They've chosen

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    You are PB's champion of the ad hominems.
    Pointing out this sort of hypocrisy is not an ad hominem. Calling you an arrogant waste of good oxygen, whilst true, would be.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    Roger said:

    Tony Blair . 'The successful politicians are the ones with simple messages but they should be able to explain and justify them in a long interview...." Talking to the soon to be ex John Humphrys.

    I wish we had someone with half his articulacy today.

    Tonys message was " Me - me me me me me"

    And he loved talking about it at great length
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    Roger said:

    Tony Blair . 'The successful politicians are the ones with simple messages but they should be able to explain and justify them in a long interview...." Talking to the soon to be ex John Humphrys.

    I wish we had someone with half his articulacy today.

    Tonys message was " Me - me me me me me"

    And he loved talking about it at great length
    You have to admire his lawyerly economy of words and his clear thinking. I can't think of any politician who comes close.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    They could do that certainly. Why not promise more things they know can't happen I guess.
    They should also start rehearsing Nick Clegg's apology of "it seemed obvious to me we weren't going to be the largest party and would have to compromise on our manifesto".
    They don't know it won't happen. They might get a majority, and revoking really would have massively beneficial effects on the public finances. They probably won't, but it's not unthinkable in this weird climate, and it's reasonable for them to make a manifesto based on the idea that they have the votes to do what's in the manifesto, since that's the whole premise of a manifesto.
    Fair point, they don't know, it's possible. I just think they've learnt the wrong lesson from coalition. The problem is not that there was a coalition, it's that their voters felt misled.
    They thought they'd voted for PR, against trident, against tuition fees. Actually they'd voted for a softer Tory govt. I'm probably just being irritable though it's true.
    Thanks for the reply and clarification.
    I think the Lib Dem position this time round is that they will hold out for what they believe in as a condition of any support for any putative minority government, rather than enabling one or other of Labour or the Tories through coalition.

    Seems fair enough to me.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    The Swinson approach also opens up the possibility of leaving the EU for good at any future point. You just need to get enough MPs, not a majority of the voters. No need for messy second referendums.

    And last night's poll would give the Tories an adequate majority to do just that. The EU can now see that trying to keep us in long term is a forlorn hope. The rules of the game have changed. They might as well let us go now, rather than have 3, 5, 10 years waiting for it to happen.

    That is what Jo Swinson has done. Thank you, Jo.
    Given how the remain side has trashed the idea of referendums having any sort of legitimacy compared to parliamentary democracy I think we're leaving long term come what may. A party of the right won't not have the full confidence of the commons forever.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Tony Blair . 'The successful politicians are the ones with simple messages but they should be able to explain and justify them in a long interview...." Talking to the soon to be ex John Humphrys.

    I wish we had someone with half his articulacy today.

    Tonys message was " Me - me me me me me"

    And he loved talking about it at great length
    You have to admire his lawyerly economy of words and his clear thinking. I can't think of any politician who comes close.
    Well said.
  • YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    The Swinson approach also opens up the possibility of leaving the EU for good at any future point. You just need to get enough MPs, not a majority of the voters. No need for messy second referendums.

    And last night's poll would give the Tories an adequate majority to do just that. The EU can now see that trying to keep us in long term is a forlorn hope. The rules of the game have changed. They might as well let us go now, rather than have 3, 5, 10 years waiting for it to happen.

    That is what Jo Swinson has done. Thank you, Jo.
    This is just a return to the status quo ante of Government making and breaking treaties. It is only since 2005 and the agitation for a referendum over the Lisbon treaty that it has been otherwise.
  • The more I see of Camerons book the more I think hed have been better shutting up. This isnt doing him any favours.

    From the extracts and quotations so far in the public domain it’s everything I feared it might be, and nothing I hoped it would be.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    Roger said:

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    That's a very astute post. The public want closure and they want those we employ to do these things to get on with it. I would be surprised if 1% understand what the Irish backstop is. Or care if they do. They've chosen

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    You are PB's champion of the ad hominems.
    Pointing out this sort of hypocrisy is not an ad hominem. Calling you an arrogant waste of good oxygen, whilst true, would be.
    You can't help yoursef! But don't fret. We all need a USP.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Today should be like a hits compilation in the SC.

    Various interventions and crucially Lord Pannick is the last speaker .

    At this point I’d say its impossible to call re the lawfulness of the decision however in terms of justiciable I’d put that as a much better chance as it’s hard to see the court giving a blank check to a future PM .

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    Except he was held to account - in the general election which immediately followed.
  • YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    Very good summary of where we are I think.. In an election this year I struggle to see the LDs falling lower than 20% which will ensure that Labour won't be higher than 25%.. The result will hinge on how hard the tories can squeeze the brexit party.. So far they are doing OK to keep them to 10-14% but they need to get that to 8% or lower in my opinion to be sure of a majority..

    What the revoke position has done in my opinion is make it more likely for green votes to be squeezed to the LDs and not Labour as it was always assumed would be the case.. Makes labour's job even harder.
  • TGOHF said:
    Why should the LibDems not stand against these people? Surely they would hope to exploit the TIGgers splitting the votes for their old parties.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    I am pretty sure that this will prove a temporary state of affairs and not be reflected in other polling (which also tends to have the Tories somewhat lower) but at what point do Labour really start to panic? 70+ of their MPs are in serious danger of having their careers cut short on these numbers and they could find themselves a longer way from power than they have been for a very long time having not only lost an election but got themselves in a situation where its very difficult to win the election after that.

    The Tories will be looking at the 14% for TBP and thinking, push comes to shove, we'll have some of that, but where do Labour look?
  • Not surprised the LibDems have had a boost - they had a great conference, and have a very simple and clear message for voters on the singular issue of the day.

    Will be fun to see the Labour conference play out. Nicely set up for internal screaming rows after the ousting of the students with a single motion to roll back Clause 4 given massive coverage thanks to the absurd mishandling of it by the party. And thats before they get to Brexit. The new Corbyn position is even more absurd than the previous one - not only is he still insisting the EU will give him unicorn cake but now he expects they will do so knowing that he then won't endorse said cake in a referendum.

    And then after the Labour conference we get the Tory conference, where I expect its going to resemble a combination of Alan B'Stard ranting at the lectern with the entire set falling down behind Boris as he rambles on clueless about anything with cutaways to various glowering people in the audience.

    It really is in the best interests of everyone that we don't get a general election this year. It will be *chaos*
  • nico67 said:

    There will be huge relief amongst the Lib Dems after the YouGov poll.

    However the revoke policy hasn’t come under sustained attack which you might see in a general election .

    I think the messaging around Revoke will be important , it’s the only way to end the chaos etc.

    The Lib Dems need to order the bus , start printing the t shirts aswell !

    I think Vote To Revoke is a simple message and could catch on.

    Given the current and target electorate of the LDs resides almost entirely within the 48pc, they have almost nothing to lose. I don’t think they’ll win or come second, but it’s a policy which will keep most current voters and attract strong Remainers from the other two who feel their views have been ignored in what should have been a compromise outcome.

    Even among those who’d speak up for a deal because Will Of The People, I suspect a fair few will feel like handing Boris and Jezza their arses on a plate when they get in the polling booth.

    I’m not sure it’s a sustainable long-term policy any more than a hard Brexit, but given where they are, people’s selfishness and the fact they won’t get a majority anyway, it feels like decent white space to pitch their caravan.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Tony Blair . 'The successful politicians are the ones with simple messages but they should be able to explain and justify them in a long interview...." Talking to the soon to be ex John Humphrys.

    I wish we had someone with half his articulacy today.

    Tonys message was " Me - me me me me me"

    And he loved talking about it at great length
    You have to admire his lawyerly economy of words and his clear thinking. I can't think of any politician who comes close.
    Blair still interviews very well and has been one of the few remainers who can make valid points for staying in, His points in isolation are measured and convincing - no need to say were all going to die. But he's Blair, the man who gave us the shlimazzel nation, you just know it will end bad and hell bugger off to his next disaster with a wad of cash.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    The Swinson approach also opens up the possibility of leaving the EU for good at any future point. You just need to get enough MPs, not a majority of the voters. No need for messy second referendums.

    And last night's poll would give the Tories an adequate majority to do just that. The EU can now see that trying to keep us in long term is a forlorn hope. The rules of the game have changed. They might as well let us go now, rather than have 3, 5, 10 years waiting for it to happen.

    That is what Jo Swinson has done. Thank you, Jo.
    To what do we owe to days new avatar? The law is an ass?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,300
    Nigelb said:

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    Except he was held to account - in the general election which immediately followed.
    Boris wanted a general election and was denied it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    Roger said:

    An angle I hadn't considered to the Revoke pledge is that the LibDems can reasonably get an estimate of how much extra growth and tax revenue they can get from not wreaking havoc on the economy in general and the financial sector in particular, and promise to spend that money in all kinds of fabulous ways.

    These are pretty immense sums, and they couldn't really promise to spend them if they were planning on leaving things up to the voters, especially if they're hoping to pick up some fiscal-prudence-motivated ex-Cons made homeless by the Tories turning to fuck-everything don't-tax-just-spend Trumpism.

    You are not suggesting a BIG RED BUS with BIG BOLD ££££ Signs on the side are you?
    "Brexit costs us* £400 million a week. Let's fund the NHS instead"

    For the giggles.

    * A random but impressive number.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618
    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    Except he was held to account - in the general election which immediately followed.
    Boris wanted a general election and was denied it.
    At the time of the prorogation, BoZo was saying that he didn't want an election. Of course we know that he is a habitual liar, but the timeline is in that order.

    Why can't he just be honest and respect the rules?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446

    This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.

    Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

    Away you jealous halfwit, if someone wants to send their children to private school for whatever reason that is their choice. Arseholes like you should not be able to tell people what to do with their money. Get a job and get your own kids a better education than you appear to have had.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    DavidL said:

    I am pretty sure that this will prove a temporary state of affairs and not be reflected in other polling (which also tends to have the Tories somewhat lower) but at what point do Labour really start to panic? 70+ of their MPs are in serious danger of having their careers cut short on these numbers and they could find themselves a longer way from power than they have been for a very long time having not only lost an election but got themselves in a situation where its very difficult to win the election after that.

    The Tories will be looking at the 14% for TBP and thinking, push comes to shove, we'll have some of that, but where do Labour look?

    Green and previous non voters was the 2017 trick
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    edited September 2019
    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    Except he was held to account - in the general election which immediately followed.
    Boris wanted a general election and was denied it.
    But that is nothing to do with the reason for and effects of this prorogation.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    Hmm, this feels like the beginning of a banking system failure. Question for those of you who were in the middle of it last time, how long did it take to find out which banks weren't to be trusted with overnight funding?

    It does feel like all of the banks are about to give each other a very wide berth.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    malcolmg said:

    This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.

    Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

    Away you jealous halfwit, if someone wants to send their children to private school for whatever reason that is their choice. Arseholes like you should not be able to tell people what to do with their money. Get a job and get your own kids a better education than you appear to have had.
    A nuanced response, malcolm.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    Foxy said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sir John is obviously not happy with Boris.. frankly its hard to support Boris if you have a sensible hat on...

    Rank hypocrisy from the man who prorogued Parliament for two weeks to avoid his own political embarrassment and being held to account for corruption in his party.
    Except he was held to account - in the general election which immediately followed.
    Boris wanted a general election and was denied it.
    At the time of the prorogation, BoZo was saying that he didn't want an election. Of course we know that he is a habitual liar, but the timeline is in that order.

    Why can't he just be honest and respect the rules?
    which rules ? There are no rules
  • nico67 said:

    Today should be like a hits compilation in the SC.

    Various interventions and crucially Lord Pannick is the last speaker .

    At this point I’d say its impossible to call re the lawfulness of the decision however in terms of justiciable I’d put that as a much better chance as it’s hard to see the court giving a blank check to a future PM .

    Unpopular view: the barristers matter much less than most people imagine. The idea that a Supreme Court judge is going to be persuaded by oratory or skilful argument is rather hopeful. These are extremely clever people who know all the tricks and who will have been thinking very deeply about this for themselves. The barristers’ most valuable function is poking holes in their opponents’ arguments.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    edited September 2019

    YouGov are a bit up and down, so positive for Swinson but pinch of salt needed.

    However, I do think commentariat have misread this. Beyond a small group of very political people, there has never been a big clamour for a second referendum. The clamour is for closure, not more months of politicking. Johnson's No Deal seems, falsely, to offer this whereas in fact it's just the absence of a deal - years more messing about beckon. Swinson's approach ends it with the stroke of a pen.

    The Swinson approach also opens up the possibility of leaving the EU for good at any future point. You just need to get enough MPs, not a majority of the voters. No need for messy second referendums.

    And last night's poll would give the Tories an adequate majority to do just that. The EU can now see that trying to keep us in long term is a forlorn hope. The rules of the game have changed. They might as well let us go now, rather than have 3, 5, 10 years waiting for it to happen.

    That is what Jo Swinson has done. Thank you, Jo.
    I think the situation would be the same if LD Maj PM fought and won Ref2, because the Tories would say that Ref2 was illegitimate, probably calling for a boycott, and pledge to implement the result of Ref1 without an intervening Ref3.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    It may have been discussed used previously but it seems as if the DUP has made a big move

    Arlene Foster told the Dublin chamber of commerce yesterday that the DUP would consider supporting “Northern Ireland specific” clauses in a Brexit deal “if it has the consent of the residents of Northern Ireland”
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    I am pretty sure that this will prove a temporary state of affairs and not be reflected in other polling (which also tends to have the Tories somewhat lower) but at what point do Labour really start to panic? 70+ of their MPs are in serious danger of having their careers cut short on these numbers and they could find themselves a longer way from power than they have been for a very long time having not only lost an election but got themselves in a situation where its very difficult to win the election after that.

    The Tories will be looking at the 14% for TBP and thinking, push comes to shove, we'll have some of that, but where do Labour look?

    Green and previous non voters was the 2017 trick
    Yes but I agree with those who say that the Lib Dem platform is likely to be much more attractive to Greens than Labour's. Many will be concerned if it looks like Boris is heading for control, he is probably a more divisive candidate than May, but the more in contention the Lib Dems seem the more difficult it will be to persuade non voters that voting Labour is the way to stop Boris.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    nico67 said:

    There will be huge relief amongst the Lib Dems after the YouGov poll.

    However the revoke policy hasn’t come under sustained attack which you might see in a general election .

    I think the messaging around Revoke will be important , it’s the only way to end the chaos etc.

    The Lib Dems need to order the bus , start printing the t shirts aswell !

    I think Vote To Revoke is a simple message and could catch on.

    Given the current and target electorate of the LDs resides almost entirely within the 48pc, they have almost nothing to lose. I don’t think they’ll win or come second, but it’s a policy which will keep most current voters and attract strong Remainers from the other two who feel their views have been ignored in what should have been a compromise outcome.

    Even among those who’d speak up for a deal because Will Of The People, I suspect a fair few will feel like handing Boris and Jezza their arses on a plate when they get in the polling booth.

    I’m not sure it’s a sustainable long-term policy any more than a hard Brexit, but given where they are, people’s selfishness and the fact they won’t get a majority anyway, it feels like decent white space to pitch their caravan.
    I’m personally not a great fan of Revoke before another vote even though I’m very strongly pro EU .

    However it wouldn’t stop me voting tactically for the Lib Dems , my worries about it being a proper mandate are overcome by my aversion to a no deal . I will vote Labour to oust the Tory and Lib Dem to do the same .

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Cicero said:

    A bit of current anecdotal information. In our area, we are seeing a lot of previously committed Tory members leaving and joining the Liberal Democrats, but their vote is down maybe only a quarter on 2017. With Labour, no active members have defected locally, but their vote has collapsed, and each time it is Corbyn given as the reason. The SNP are slightly down overall, and support for independence is down quite a bit. Implication is Labour hurt more than Tories and unless Kier Starmer replaces Corbyn very soon, the will take a whipping. The Tory vote is fragile, but still just about holding on

    That's one heck of a lot of detailed inferences from anecdotal evidence.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The rest of the early shift is busy reading 700 pages of David Cameron's breathless prose. The man's on telly tonight as well

    Based on some of his comments you can clearly tell that the man is a numpty with poor judgement. He just should not have made some of the comments he did.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    Charles said:

    It may have been discussed used previously but it seems as if the DUP has made a big move

    Arlene Foster told the Dublin chamber of commerce yesterday that the DUP would consider supporting “Northern Ireland specific” clauses in a Brexit deal “if it has the consent of the residents of Northern Ireland”

    the DUP are trying to get out of a cul de sac of their own making
  • As the LDs focus on Brexit, Corbyn Labour’s priorities are:
    1. Deselecting Labour MPs.
    2. Purging moderate affiliated groups.
    3. Enabling and whitewashing anti-Semitism.
    4. Facilitating far-left supporters of Brexit.
    5. Protecting friends of the leader.
    6. Rewriting Clause 4.
    The genuine surprise is that Labour is still polling as high as it is. My view is that the party may have one more chance - post-Corbyn - to engage with voters. If the next leader also comes from the far-left, the party’s over.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    Cicero said:

    A bit of current anecdotal information. In our area, we are seeing a lot of previously committed Tory members leaving and joining the Liberal Democrats, but their vote is down maybe only a quarter on 2017. With Labour, no active members have defected locally, but their vote has collapsed, and each time it is Corbyn given as the reason. The SNP are slightly down overall, and support for independence is down quite a bit. Implication is Labour hurt more than Tories and unless Kier Starmer replaces Corbyn very soon, the will take a whipping. The Tory vote is fragile, but still just about holding on

    LOL, unionist wishful thinking. On here it is always a Tory surge or even worse a Lib Dem splurge with SNP slipping.
  • TGOHF said:
    Why should the LibDems not stand against these people? Surely they would hope to exploit the TIGgers splitting the votes for their old parties.
    I agree and I am certainly no LD.. Why do them any favours by standing aside.. even if Greive stands as an independent he has zero chance of holding his seat and the same goes for Soubry in hers. I don't know about Grapes seat so can't comment but I would think it unlikely he holds on..

    Why would the LDs risk the chance of having their own true candidate be victorious in order to support people who by their very actions can be guaranteed to be loyal and who haven't even joined the LDs like some of the others have
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284

    Not surprised the LibDems have had a boost - they had a great conference, and have a very simple and clear message for voters on the singular issue of the day.

    Will be fun to see the Labour conference play out. Nicely set up for internal screaming rows after the ousting of the students with a single motion to roll back Clause 4 given massive coverage thanks to the absurd mishandling of it by the party. And thats before they get to Brexit. The new Corbyn position is even more absurd than the previous one - not only is he still insisting the EU will give him unicorn cake but now he expects they will do so knowing that he then won't endorse said cake in a referendum.

    And then after the Labour conference we get the Tory conference, where I expect its going to resemble a combination of Alan B'Stard ranting at the lectern with the entire set falling down behind Boris as he rambles on clueless about anything with cutaways to various glowering people in the audience.

    It really is in the best interests of everyone that we don't get a general election this year. It will be *chaos*

    An interesting story this morning was the claim in the Times of a government rift between the absolutist no dealers led by Cummings, and the pragmatists led by Gove (something which might amuse @ydoethur) who are allegedly desperate for a deal with the EU to be arrived at.
    Johnson is reportedly swaying between one and the other.

    Along with the (reportedly) developing feuds with Javid and Truss, it might conceivably be an interesting Tory conference for a change.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    This is good for Jo Swinson but (depending on the dates) might be more about being on telly at the conference than the policy: Bollocks to Brexit was not coined last week. Labour's attack on private schools might also be a factor. Let us see if it outlasts the conference season.

    Boris, Cummings and CCHQ will no doubt be commissioning more detailed private polls to work out where the LibDem resurgence threatens Tory or Labour constituencies. This might be crucial in a snap election.

    Can somebody please give me a moral reasoning for the existence of private schools?

    They seem to be the polar opposite of meritocratic, same as inheritance tax I guess.

    Because people have the right to free association and to determine (within limits prescribed by the state) how they want their children to be educated

    We’re not pawns to be allocated to Tractor Factory No5 by some faceless man in Whitehall
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    Justin Trudeau.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Not because blackface is just hilarious, I hope ?
    Nice to see these phony gits hoist by their own petard. He is a real phony as well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    nico67 said:

    Today should be like a hits compilation in the SC.

    Various interventions and crucially Lord Pannick is the last speaker .

    At this point I’d say its impossible to call re the lawfulness of the decision however in terms of justiciable I’d put that as a much better chance as it’s hard to see the court giving a blank check to a future PM .

    Unpopular view: the barristers matter much less than most people imagine. The idea that a Supreme Court judge is going to be persuaded by oratory or skilful argument is rather hopeful. These are extremely clever people who know all the tricks and who will have been thinking very deeply about this for themselves. The barristers’ most valuable function is poking holes in their opponents’ arguments.
    I would agree with this. Also in the SC written advocacy in advance of the hearing is at least as important as oral advocacy, probably more so. In my cases there the written case took huge amounts of work and angst. My seniors spent a long time on their speech but the main purpose of standing up was so that the Justices could ask their questions arising from the written case and address their concerns. They didn't really need to hear what they had already read.
This discussion has been closed.